inigma

Very nicely engineered. If I wanted Mk3 wings, this is how I'd want them! The landing gear... ew. Porkjet really should cut the height of those things. It's like landing with an intended faceplant on the runway. Glides very well. What's her cargo rating? - - - Updated - - - Added to OP.

Hey that's pretty nifty. Feel free to share .craft, I'd like to test her out! For sure you deserve an STS Engineer title for modifying the STS and re-building it into your own style! Here ya go! It's a forum badge. Feel free to wear it proudly! As far as releasing it as part of my own STS series, probably not since the biggest objection currently to MK3 wings and gear are that they are too oversized, bulky, and simply do not work for the aesthetics goals of my STS series. Certainly though you are welcome to release it as an STS spinoff though and I will be happy to list it in our OP. I probably wouldn't recommend calling it STS-8 just to avoid confusion with the fans of my current STS series out there, but it's up to you. I suggest STS Enterprise as a good release name for sure though! In the future, I hope to experiment with making the tank and boosters as a separate sub assembly, and just release separate orbiter updates, calling my series STS Intrepid or OV-1,2,3 Intrepid, and separate launch stack subassembly updates calling them STS-8,9,10 as intended by the original NASA STS naming convention. This way several people can contribute orbiters and even launch stacks that are roughly compatible with one another in a mix and match semi-collaborative system.

Here you go! http://kerbalx.com/inigma/SAS-Heat-Bomb-Bug

Btw, proof this can be flown IVA:

Now that's a compliment! I really hope we get someone dedicated to a mun-rocket again like he was.

Ooh neat! Glad you liked the video! Fly the STS-7 or STS-7E. You won't be disappointed! Ooh ok. Post it when you get a chance to play again and develop it. Oh I always take subassembly submissions. Oh yea... that reminds me... lol... OP updated. Glad you like it! Let me know if you have any questions!

With Zekes and most builders... my STS. Any space shuttle represents one of the greatest engineering challenges in KSP short of an entire Constellation style complete package.

Start with the STS 7 not 7E. 7 is easier to control and train on. Start at full throttle and hit your radial SAS to control lift off. The current flight profiles are out of date. I will need to post a new one as well as a video.

Those SRBs look really cool!

I am happy to report that KSP 1.0.4 eliminates the need to craft-file edit SRB fuel amounts. In fact, with 1.0.4, SRBs need to be thrust limited to prevent boosting you to pieces! The new STS 7E has been edited back to using stock SRB fuel amounts. She's "pure" stock now.

Despite walking pneumonia... I present STS-7/E for your KSP 1.0.4 flying pleasure. Aero update for KSP 1.0.4., and reorientation in VAB fixed per workaround for current cargobay heating bug: http://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/issues/5181 Also I un-edited SRB fuel amounts since 1.0.4 vastly improves SRB efficiency (so much so I also had to thrust limit them, even with the STS Fuel Pod!). No craft file magic with this one. Pure stock! Enjoy! OP updated. Flight profile not so much as I am still trying to figure out the best profile, but this thing screams into orbit. Just watch it. Fly it like a spaceplace after ditching boosters (cruise while around 65k) and you will be fine for a debris free orbital insertion.

This is def off topic: You are full of assumptions. I do not care about my post or thread. I know there are other reports of incorrect heating being applied to parts. I don't believe my report and test craft are related yet, simply because the effect on open and closed doors and orientation of the belly is repeatable whereas others I've researched are not so repeatable. Furthermore it is not my perrogative to lay out a bug report with reproduction steps and a test craft and a video per the recommended steps for reporting problems that is clearly laid out in a sticky on this forum, for an issue you are experiencing directly yourself but I'm not. Do the work yourself if you are so upset about it. Which brings me to another false assumption you have. I am not upset and crying over this. Clearly I am fine with the workaround I discovered, but I do find this particular bug rather amusing, especially coming from me, a builder who discovered how to make kraken drives smaller and help crack open its early development. And this amusement I gladly share for the benefit of my fans who are still waiting for an updated STS launch video. Imagine Danny2462 doing a video on major bugs he finds. Oh wait. He does. And linking a video here in this thread, 'cause its relevant, is not against the law. Nor do I believe I am the law. Nor is linking it to my own managed STS thread somehow is not relevant, because it is relevant. Nor is posting it as a response to page 5 of some buried relevant topic in Gen Disc. Nor is it not relevant to posting it in Fan Works for posterity. If somehow you feel your personal universe has been violated with my video, go watch some Danny, and leave me alone. Or go submit a valid bug report with all the steps listed above assuming you can duplicate, document, and deliver what Squad requires, not whining.

Then why does my craft file act that way? Do you want me to post another video showing that it acts that way?

Who hasn't seen the movie in the OP?

Here's the Reaction.

Oh and I made this video just now showcasing the bug we're facing: Enjoy!

What is a bug like this doing without an exploit video? Well wait no more. Enjoy!! I made this video specifically to showcase this bug in all its glory (at least in what I could replicate)!

Rip parts off your craft until you can no longer reproduce the issue, and then either get creative to see if you can build a simple craft demonstrating the effect, or submit your remaining ripped up craft (one that explodes) along with duplication instructions to the bug report, or if you feel its unrelated, create a new bug report. - - - Updated - - - updated OP with bug info, and new update.

Yes! A bug report submitted, and it has been confirmed: http://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/issues/5181 The work around I discovered is simply to reorient the shuttle with the cargo bay belly facing northward for now prior to launch. Insta-fix. Enjoy! I will need to release an STS-7 anyways sometime this weekend though since current 1.0.4 aero severely destabilizes empty bay landings due to the extra wing I put in STS-6 for 1.0.2. So stay tuned for that. In the meantime, with a new shuttle on the way, you can still fly STS 6 and 6E safely by launching from VAB with belly facing north or south in the editor, and you will avoid all BOOOMS. Just click on the cockpit, hit E to rotate the entire craft 90 degrees, and hit launch, and you have a working shuttle again.

Build the simplest test craft possible to duplicate your experience and notate steps you took to duplicate the overheating. Add your simple craft and steps to duplicate to the bug report! If you then suspect its not related, submit a new report!

Created bug report to track this. http://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/issues/5181

I built a launch pad mk3 cargo bay bomb out of just 5 parts demonstrating a heat bug nicely. does that count as my 1.0.4 "reaction"? craft file: http://kerbalx.com/inigma/SAS-Heat-Bomb-Bug

Danny2462... I wonder if he pays for this sorta knowledge.

I think it affects both stowed and unstowed parts. In my bug bomb craft the girder is simply attached to the belly of the cargo bay, and the SAS units to the girder.